Post on 23-Aug-2020
ENROLLMENT IN NATURAL RESOURCES
DEGREE PROGRAMS IN THE U.S.: TRENDS,
DRIVERS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
FUTURE OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES
PROFESSION
UP Chapter SAF and Central Ontario Chapter CIF Meeting
Sault Ste. Marie, MI, April 12, 2018
Terry L. Sharik Robbins Professor of Sustainable Resources and Dean
Tara L. Bal Research Assistant Professor
Key References
Sharik, T. L., R. J. Lilieholm, W. W. Richardson, and W. E. Lindquist. 2015. Undergraduate enrollment in U.S. natural resource academic programs: Trends, drivers, and implications for the future of the profession. Journal of Forestry 113 (6):538-551.
Sharik, T. L. 2015. Strategies for diversifying student demographics in natural resources. Journal of Forestry 113 (6):579-580 .
Undergraduate NR enrollment by field of
study at 31 NAUFRP institutions, 1980–2009.
Proportion of undergraduate NR enrollment in
various fields of study at 31 NAUFRP institutions for
1980, 1990, 2000, and 2009.
Undergraduate NR enrollment by academic area at
42 NAUFRP institutions, 2005–2016 (FAEIS database,
January 17, 2018).
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Academ
ic A
rea E
nro
llment
(1000’S
)
Environmental Science and Studies Fisheries & Wildlife
Forestry NR Conser. & Management
NR Recreation Range Science and Management
Watershed Science & Management Wood Science/Products
Tota
l Enro
llment (1
000’s
)
Proportion of NR undergraduates enrolled in various
academic areas at 52 NAUFRP institutions, 2012 & 2016
(FAEIS database, January 17, 2018).
2012 2016
Recreation almost halved
Wood and Range down
Water, FOR, ENV, NR up
slightly
USDA Forest Service employment in NR-related job
series, 2001–2010 (USDA Forest Service, unpubl.
data, 2010, file date Apr. 24, 2011).
Reasons for Especially Sharp Declines
in Forestry Enrollments
Diversification of degree offerings in Natural Resources Colleges (demand-driven).
Shift in hiring practices in federal agencies toward natural resource generalists.
Changing public values towards forests (shift from utilitarian/economic view, to a broader array of ecosystem values) (Xu & Bengston 1991, MEA 2005).
Public association of forestry with the utilitarian/economic perspective (Wellman 1987, Luckert 2006, Sharik & Frisk 2011).
Professional association of forestry with specialization in managing wood resources.
Inflexible curricula bound by accreditation standards compared to other natural resource fields (especially regarding transfer students).
Declining (tree) harvest levels on National Forests – a resource typically managed by foresters.
Not attractive to females and minorities.
Negative Image of Forestry--Global
USA: ―Low gender diversity in the workforce and concerns over a
negative public image of forestry were also cited as sources of
hesitancy (by forestry majors) to matriculating in a forestry program‖
(Sharik 2008).
CANADA: ―….the forestry schools will join forces with the broader
forestry community to enhance the image of the forest sector and
the forestry profession‖ (Smith 2008).
ASIA PACIFIC: ―…..there is a renewed interest from (forestry)
professionals seeking to move to a career which is more
environmentally oriented or directed to the public good…..‖ (Kennan
and Kanowski 2008).
LATIN AMERICA: ―The academic improvement of the forest
professional, and his image in the society, constitutes one of the
greatest challenges of RELAFOR.‖ (Latin American Forestry
Education Network) (Encinas 2008)
From ―Negative Image of Forestry a Global Problem‖ – Quotations from presentations
given at the First International Conference on Forestry Education, Beijing, China,
December 7-11, 2008.
Gender
Attributes of people in the work force holding
undergraduate degrees in major groups of study from U.S.
colleges based on 2009 data. Listed in order of median
wages (Carnevale et al. 2011)
Major Group
Median
Wages
% of All
Majors
%
Obtaining
Graduate
Degree
%
Earnings
Boost
from
Graduate
Degree
Full-
time
Work
Status
(%)
Employment
(%)
Female
(%)
White
(%)
Engineering $75,000 8.2 37 32 93 94 16 71
Computers and mathematics $70,000 5.1 32 31 91 94 31 67
Business $60,000 2.5 21 40 90 95 45 76
Health $60,000 6.9 31 50 77 98 85 73
Physical sciences $59,000 2.8 48 70 86 95 42 74
Social science $55,000 6.9 40 57 86 94 47 75
Agriculture and natural resources $50,000 1.6 27 35 90 96 30 90
Communications and journalism $50,000 5.9 20 25 82 94 64 81
Industrial arts and consumer services $50,000 1.6 20 35 84 95 35 83
Law and public policy $50,000 2.3 24 45 90 95 41 72
Biology and life science $50,000 3.5 54 101 81 95 55 76
Humanities and liberal arts $47,000 9.7 41 48 80 93 58 80
Arts $44,000 4.6 23 23 76 92 61 81
Education $42,000 10.6 44 33 82 96 77 82
Psychology and social work $42,000 5.4 45 43 79 94 74 76
(Carnevale et al. 2011)
Various attributes of people in the work force holding undergraduate
degrees in Forestry and Natural Resource Management compared to
other majors in Agriculture and Natural Resources from U.S. colleges,
based on 2009 data (Carnevale et al. 2011).
Percent of
Major
Group
(rank)
Median
Earnings
($, rank)
%
Obtaining
Graduate
Degree
Earnings
Boost
from
Graduate
Degree
(%, rank)
Full-time
Work
Status
(%, rank)
Employ-
ed
(%, rank)
Female
(%, rank)
Female
Median
Earnings
($, rank)
Male
Median
Earnings
($, rank)
White
(%, rank)
Agriculture and
Natural
Resources Major
Group* 100 50,000 27 35 90 96 30 40,000 55,000 90
Forestry 11 (6) 60,000 (2) 26 (6) 15 (8) 92 (2) 97 (2) 17 (10) 50,000
(2) 60,000
(2) 93 (1)
Natural
Resources
Management 14 (4) 50,000 (3) 28 (5) 45 (2) 88 (5) 95 (4) 33 (4) 43,000
(3) 53,000
(3) 92 (2)
(Carnevale et al. 2011)
*Includes Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Production and Management, Animal Sciences, Food
Sciences, Forestry, General Agriculture, Miscellaneous Agriculture, Natural Resources Management, Plant
Sciences and Agronomy, and Soil Science.
Workforce characteristics for employees with
undergraduate degrees in US Census fields of study
represented in NR programs at NAUFRP institutions,
2009.
Undergraduate NR enrollment by gender for 42
Institutions, (FAEIS data set, only complete data),
2005–2016, excluding unknown gender.
Gende
r 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Femal
e 5,143 5,582 5,559 5,869 6,674 7,464 8,446 8,569 8,721 8,870 9,644 10,308
% 36.4 36.5 37.3 38.6 39.9 40.3 41.8 42.1 42.6 44.5 45.0 46.1
Male 8,995 9,710 9,340 9,327 10,060 11,047 11,740 11,772 11,747 11,068 11,805 12,065
% 63.6 63.5 62.7 61.4 60.1 59.7 58.2 57.9 57.4 55.5 55.0 53.9
Total 14,138 15,292 14,899 15,196 16,734 18,511 20,186 20,341 20,468 19,938 21,449 22,373
Undergraduate enrollment in NR programs at 42 NAUFRP
institutions (with completed data) by academic area and
gender, 2012 & 2016, excluding unknown gender.
Data from FAEIS database, January 18, 2018.
2012 2016
Areas Female Male % Female %
Female Environmental Science & Studies 1,668 1,694 49.6 53.8 Fisheries & Wildlife 2,925 3,333 46.7 53.2 NR Conservation & Management 2,135 2,573 45.3 48.7 NR Recreation 595 610 49.4 45.7 Range Science & Management 175 260 40.2 43.1 Watershed Science &
Management 128 162 44.1 32.6
Wood Science/Products 55 191 22.4 30.8
Forestry 888 2949 23.1 26.2
Total 8,569 11,772 42.1 46.1
Race/Ethnicity
Attributes of people in the work force holding undergraduate
degrees in major groups of study from U.S. colleges based on
2009 data. Listed in order of median wages (Carnevale et al.
2011)
Major Group
Median
Wages
% of All
Majors
%
Obtaining
Graduate
Degree
%
Earnings
Boost
from
Graduate
Degree
Full-
time
Work
Status
(%)
Employment
(%)
Female
(%)
White
(%)
Engineering $75,000 8.2 37 32 93 94 16 71
Computers and mathematics $70,000 5.1 32 31 91 94 31 67
Business $60,000 2.5 21 40 90 95 45 76
Health $60,000 6.9 31 50 77 98 85 73
Physical sciences $59,000 2.8 48 70 86 95 42 74
Social science $55,000 6.9 40 57 86 94 47 75
Agriculture and natural resources $50,000 1.6 27 35 90 96 30 90
Communications and journalism $50,000 5.9 20 25 82 94 64 81
Industrial arts and consumer services $50,000 1.6 20 35 84 95 35 83
Law and public policy $50,000 2.3 24 45 90 95 41 72
Biology and life science $50,000 3.5 54 101 81 95 55 76
Humanities and liberal arts $47,000 9.7 41 48 80 93 58 80
Arts $44,000 4.6 23 23 76 92 61 81
Education $42,000 10.6 44 33 82 96 77 82
Psychology and social work $42,000 5.4 45 43 79 94 74 76
(Carnevale et al. 2011)
Various attributes of people in the work force holding undergraduate degrees in
Forestry and Natural Resource Management compared to other majors in
Agriculture and Natural Resources from U.S. colleges, based on 2009 data
(Carnevale et al. 2011).
Percent of
Major
Group
(rank)
Median
Earnings
($, rank)
%
Obtaining
Graduate
Degree
Earnings
Boost
from
Graduate
Degree
(%, rank)
Full-time
Work
Status
(%, rank)
Employ-
ed
(%, rank)
Female
(%, rank)
Female
Median
Earnings
($, rank)
Male
Median
Earnings
($, rank)
White
(%, rank)
Agriculture and
Natural
Resources Major
Group* 100 50,000 27 35 90 96 30 40,000 55,000 90
Forestry 11 (6) 60,000 (2) 26 (6) 15 (8) 92 (2) 97 (2) 17 (10) 50,000
(2) 60,000
(2) 93 (1)
Natural
Resources
Management 14 (4) 50,000 (3) 28 (5) 45 (2) 88 (5) 95 (4) 33 (4) 43,000
(3) 53,000
(3) 92 (2)
(Carnevale et al. 2011)
*Includes Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Production and Management, Animal Sciences, Food
Sciences, Forestry, General Agriculture, Miscellaneous Agriculture, Natural Resources Management, Plant
Sciences and Agronomy, and Soil Science.
Workforce characteristics for employees with undergraduate degrees in
US Census fields of study represented in NR programs at NAUFRP
institutions, 2009.
Total undergraduate enrollment in NR programs by
race/ethnicity from 42 NAUFRP Institutions, FAIES dataset,
2005–2016 (excluding non-US citizens, two or more races,
unknown and unspecified).
0
5
10
15
20
25
Enro
llment
(1000'S
)
White, non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
Total Minority Total
Total undergraduate enrollment in NR programs by race/ethnicity from
42 NAURFP Institutions, FAIES dataset, 2005–2016 (excluding non-
Hispanic white, non-US citizens, two or more races, unknown and
unspecified).
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
En
rollm
en
t (1
00
0'S
)
American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian
Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Total Minority
Absolute and percent undergraduate enrollment in NR programs
by race/ethnicity from FAIES dataset with complete data for all
years (n=42 institutions), 2005–2016 (excluding non-US citizens
and two or more races).
Race/Ethnicity 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Caucasian 11845
(70.3) 12793
(75.6) 12463
(72.4) 12694
(70.5) 13673
(71.0) 14830
(71.1) 15554
(72.0) 15772
(72.2) 15681
(70.8) 15165
(72.6) 16128
(75.1) 16939
(75.6)
Unknown Ethnicity 3487
(20.7) 2452
(14.5) 3046
(17.7) 3316
(18.4) 3501
(18.2) 3418
(16.4) 3079
(14.3) 3008
(13.8) 3078
(13.9) 2199
(10.5) 1302 (6.1) 1333 (6.0)
Hispanic 405 (2.4) 489 (2.9) 520 (3.0) 540 (3.0) 650 (3.4) 933 (4.5) 1153 (5.3) 1179 (5.4) 1289 (5.8) 1259 (6.0) 1560 (7.3) 1687 (7.5)
Asian 178 (1.1) 212 (1.3) 276 (1.6) 338 (1.9) 264 (1.4) 305(1.5) 268 (1.2) 338 (1.5) 364 (1.6) 395 (1.9) 415 (1.9) 418 (1.9)
Black, non-Hispanic 139 (0.8) 156 (0.9) 202 (1.2) 208 (1.2) 209 (1.1) 227 (1.1) 277 (1.3) 284 (1.3) 302 (1.4) 315 (1.5) 401 (1.9) 329 (1.5)
American Indian or
Alaskan Native 173 (1.0) 174 (1.0) 175 (1.0) 184 (1.0) 199 (1.0) 228 (1.1) 201 (0.9) 192 (0.9) 200 (0.9) 188 (0.9) 184 (0.9) 186 (0.8)
Native Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander 21 (0.1) 9 (0.1) 12 (0.1) 7 (0.0) 15 (0.1) 20 (0.1) 19 (0.1) 16 (0.1) 23 (0.1) 18 (0.1) 18 (0.1) 22 (0.1)
Unspecified Minority 54 (0.3) 54 (0.3) 74 (0.4) 189 (1.1) 155 (0.8) 256 (1.2) 279 (1.3) 124 (0.6) 162 (0.7) 54 (0.3) 52 (0.2) 19 (0.1)
Total 16838 16924 17223 18000 19256 20860 21598 21853 22143 20875 21466 22397
Total Minority 970 (5.8) 1094 (6.5) 1259 (7.3) 1466 (8.1) 1492 (7.7) 1969 (9.4) 2197
(10.2) 2133 (9.8) 2340
(10.6) 2229
(10.7) 2630
(12.3) 2661
(11.9)
U.S. Population of 18- to 24-year olds by
race/ethnicity, 2005 to 2009.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
White, Non-Hispanic 18,057,079 (61.9%) 18,074,501 (61.7%) 18,125,260 (61.5%) 18,235,034 (61.2%) 18,335,329 (60.8%)
Hispanic 5,145,678 (17.7%) 5,196,018 (17.7%) 5,247,627 (17.8%) 5,360,039 (18.0%) 5,502,605 (18.2%)
Black 4,340,582 (14.9%) 4,393,557 (15.0%) 4,466,142 (15.2%) 4,576,954 (15.4%) 4,676,303 (15.5%)
Asian and Pacific Islander 1,241,298 (4.3%) 1,239,657 (4.2%) 1,242,635 (4.2%) 1,251,080 (4.2%) 1,261,022 (4.2%)
American Indian/Alaskan Native 366,761 (1.3%) 372,658 (1.3%) 378,035 (1.3%) 382,971 (1.3%) 387,389 (1.3%)
Undergraduate NR enrollment at 67 NAUFRP institutions by race/ethnicity
as a percentage of the 18- to 24-year-old population in each group, 2005–
2009 (US Census Bureau 2010, U.S. Department of Education 2010; FAEIS
database, Apr. 12, 2010).
Undergraduate NR enrollment by academic area and
race/ethnicity at 52 NAUFRP institutions (FAEIS data,
excluding unknown ethnicity, non-US citizens, and two or
more races), 2016.
Academic Area Total
Enrollme
nt
America
n Indian
or
Alaskan
Native Asian Black Hispanic
Native
Hawaiian
or other
Pacific
Islander Unspecif.
Minority Caucasia
n Total
Minority
Total
Minority
Percentage
Environmental Science &
Studies 4599 35 (0.8) 186 (4.0) 165 (3.6) 497 (10.8) 2 (0.0) 5 (0.1) 3709
(80.6) 890 19.4%
Range Science &
Management 259 11 (4.2) 1 (0.4) 0 (0.0) 29 (11.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 218 (84.2) 41 15.8%
Fisheries & Wildlife 6683 69 (1.0) 107 (1.6) 111 (0.9) 612 (3.7) 10 (0.1) 1 (0.0) 5773
(86.4) 910 13.6%
NR Conservation &
Management 4504 45 (1.0) 111 (2.5) 91 (2.0) 355 (7.9) 7 (0.2) 4 (0.1) 3891
(86.4) 613 13.6%
NR Recreation 1276 5 (0.4) 20 (1.6) 62 (4.9) 66 (5.2) 4 (0.3) 0 (0.0) 1119
(87.7) 157 12.3%
Wood Science/Products 220 4 (1.8) 9 (4.1) 4 (1.8) 8 (3.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 195 (84.2) 25 11.4%
Forestry 3740 29 (0.8) 32 (0.9) 32 (0.9) 239 (6.4) 3 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 3405
(91.0) 335 9.0%
Watershed Science &
Management 436 3 (0.7) 10 (2.3) 4 (0.9) 16 (3.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 403 (92.4) 33 7.6%
Total Enrollment in 2016
(n=52) 21717 201
(0.93) 476
(2.1) 469
(2.1) 1822
(8.3) 26
(0.1) 10
(0.0) 18713
(86.1) 3004 13.8%
Undergraduate enrollment in NR programs at NAUFRP
institutions (FAIES data, n=52) by race/ethnicity and
gender, 2016 (excluding unknown gender). FAEIS, 2018.
Race/Ethnicity Female Male Grand
Total % Female
Asian 282 194 476 59.2%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific
Islander 15 11 26 57.7%
ALL Non-US Citizens 147 122 269 54.6%
Hispanic 1013 809 1822 55.6%
Two or More Races (Multiple
Ethnicity) 401 360 765 52.4%
Unspecified Minority 5 5 10 50.0%
Black, non-Hispanic 221 248 469 47.1%
Unknown Ethnicity 533 602 1139 46.8%
White, non-Hispanic 8015 10684 18713 42.8%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 85 116 201 42.3%
Grand Total 10717 13151 23890 44.9%
Total and minority undergraduate NR enrollment at 64
NAUFRP institutions, 2012 (FAEIS database, Apr. 1, 2014).
Geographic distribution of minority undergraduate NR
enrollment at 64 NAUFRP institutions, 2012 (FAEIS database,
Apr. 1, 2014).
Graduate Enrollment
Graduate NR enrollment by academic area at 42
NAUFRP institutions, 2005–2016 (FAEIS database,
January 17, 2018).
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
To
tal G
rad
ua
te E
nro
llme
nt
Gra
duate
Enro
llment
by P
rogra
mm
atic
Are
a
Environmental Science and Studies Fisheries & WildlifeForestry NR Conser. & ManagementNR Recreation Range Science and ManagementWatershed Science & Management Wood Science/Products
Proportion of NR graduates enrolled in various academic
areas at 52 NAUFRP institutions, 2012 & 2016 (FAEIS
database, January 17, 2018).
FW 15.1%
(595)
FOR 24.4%
(958)
EV 10.4%
(407)
NR 38.8%
(1524)
Rec 2.4%
(95)
Range 3.2%
(124)
Water 4.5%
(177)
Wood 1.3%
(52)
2012 2016
FW 17.8%
(607)
FOR 20.6%
(702)
EV 7.7%
(264)
NR 40.7%
(1387)
Rec 3.1%
(107)
Range 3.4%
(116)
Water 4.3%
(148)
Wood 2.3%
(80)
Comparison of the proportion of NR undergraduates and
graduates enrolled in various academic areas at 52 NAUFRP
institutions, 2016 (FAEIS database, January 17, 2018).
Undergraduate Students Graduate Students
FW 17.8%
(607)
FOR 20.6%
(702)
EV 7.7%
(264)
NR 40.7%
(1387)
Rec 3.1%
(107)
Range 3.4%
(116)
Water 4.3%
(148)
Wood 2.3%
(80)
Gender
Graduate NR enrollment by gender for 42
Institutions, (FAEIS data set, only complete data),
2005–2016, excluding unknown gender.
Gende
r 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Femal
e 1,271 1,423 1,281 1,387 1,470 1,605 1,716 1,716 1,639 1,678 1,709 1,684
% 44% 45% 46% 46% 45% 46% 47% 47% 47% 47% 48% 49%
Male 1,633 1,705 1,527 1,645 1,827 1,885 1,921 1,935 1,813 1,905 1,850 1,725
% 56% 55% 54% 54% 55% 54% 53% 53% 53% 53% 52% 51%
Total 2,904 3,128 2,808 3,032 3,297 3,490 3,637 3,651 3,452 3,583 3,559 3,409
Graduate enrollment in NR programs at 42 NAUFRP
institutions (with completed data) by academic area and
gender, 2012 & 2016, excluding unknown gender.
2012 2016
Areas Female Male % Female % Female
Range Science & Management 58 47 55.2 51.7
Environmental Science & Studies 215 191 53.0 51.1
NR Recreation 50 45 52.6 49.5
NR Conservation & Management 677 688 49.6 52.6
Watershed Science &
Management 67 82 45.0
47.3
Forestry 361 552 39.5 40.4
Fisheries & Wildlife 270 296 47.7 52.3
Wood Science/Products 18 34 34.6 45.0
Total 1,716 1,935 47.2 48.7
Data from FAEIS database, January 18, 2018.
Th
e o
rder
is d
iffe
rent fr
om
underg
raduate
s
Race/Ethnicity
Total graduate enrollment in NR programs by race/ethnicity
from 42 NAUFRP Institutions, FAIES dataset, 2005–2016
(excluding non-US citizens, two or more races, unknown and
unspecified).
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
EN
RO
LL
ME
NT
(10
00
'S)
American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian
Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Total
White, non-Hispanic Total Minority
Total graduate enrollment in NR programs by race/ethnicity from 42
NAURFP Institutions, FAIES dataset, 2005–2016 (excluding non-Hispanic
white, non-US citizens, two or more races, unknown and unspecified, and
overall total).
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 GR
AD
UA
TE
EN
RO
LL
ME
NT
(1
00
0'S
)
American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian
Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Total Minority
Absolute and percent graduate enrollment in NR programs by
race/ethnicity from FAIES dataset with complete data for all years
(n=42 institutions), 2005–2016 (excluding non-US citizens and two
or more races).
Race/Ethnicity 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
White, non-Hispanic 2150
(65.7) 2304
(70.6) 2081
(65.2) 2149
(67.4) 2269
(69.2) 2476
(70.6) 2541
(74.8) 2478
(71.8) 2314
(71.6) 2409
(78.5) 2380
(79.8) 2260
(79.5)
Unknown Ethnicity 915 (28.0) 732 (22.4) 869 (27.2) 734 (23.0) 750 (22.9) 712 (20.3) 539 (15.9) 652 (18.9) 581 (18.0) 348 (11.3) 287 (9.6) 278 (9.8)
American Indian or Alaskan Native 18 (0.6) 24 (0.7) 19 (0.6) 30(0.9) 25 (0.8) 25 (0.7) 25 (0.7) 23 (0.7) 27 (0.8) 27 (0.9) 28 (0.9) 28 (1.0)
Asian 49 (1.5) 53 (1.6) 89(2.8) 111 (3.5) 51 (1.6) 86 (2.5) 52 (1.5) 64 (1.9) 80 (2.5) 81 (2.6) 72 (2.4) 79 (2.8)
Black, non-Hispanic 44 (1.3) 37 (1.1) 34 (1.1) 44 (1.4) 42 (1.3) 41 (1.2) 42 (1.2) 63 (1.8) 50 (1.5) 51 (1.7) 55 (1.8) 44 (1.5)
Hispanic 76 (2.3) 88 (2.7) 83 (2.6) 95 (3.0) 104 (3.2) 118 (3.4) 142 (4.2) 142 (4.1) 150 (4.6) 132 (4.3) 149 (5.0) 142 (5.0)
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0 (0.0) 2 (0.1) 3 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 2 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 2 (0.1) 1 (0.0) 2 (0.1)
Unspecified Minority 18 (0.6) 22 (0.7) 15 (0.5) 27 (1.8) 35 (1.1) 48 (1.4) 55 (1.6) 30 (0.9) 29 (0.9) 17 (0.6) 10 (0.3) 11 (0.4)
Total 32670 3262 3193 3190 3278 3506 3397 3452 3232 3067 2982 2844
Total Minority 205 (6.3) 226 (6.9) 243 (7.6) 307 (9.6) 259 (7.9) 318 (9.1) 317 (9.3) 322 (9.3) 337 (10.4) 310 (10.1) 315 (10.6) 306 (10.8)
Graduate NR enrollment by academic area and race/ethnicity
at 52 NAUFRP institutions (FAEIS data, excluding unknown
ethnicity, non-US citizens, and two or more races), 2016.
Academic Area
Total
Enrollment
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native Asian Black Hispanic
Native
Hawaiian or
other
Pacific
Islander
Unspecifi
ed
Minority
Caucasia
n
Total
Minority
Total
Minority
Percentag
e
Recreation 74 0 (0.0) 4 (5.4) 10 (13.5) 9 (12.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 51 (68.9) 23 31.1%
Range Science & Management 90 2 (2.2) 3 (3.3) 0 (0.0) 15 (16.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 70 (77.8) 20 22.2%
Wood Science/Products 33 0 (0.0) 4 (12.1) 2 (6.1) 1 (3.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 26 (78.8) 7 21.2%
Environmental Science & Studies 188 2 (1.1) 10 (5.3) 7 (3.7) 10 (5.3) 1 (0.5) 5 (2.7) 153 (81.4) 35 18.6%
Forestry 518 9 (1.7) 19 (1.2) 6 (2.1) 21 (4.1) 0 (0.0) 3 (0.6) 460 (88.8) 58 11.2%
Watershed Science & Management 108 2 (1.9) 4 (3.7) 1 (0.9) 3 (2.8) 1 (0.9) 1 (0.9) 96 (88.9) 12 11.1%
NR Conservation & Management 1039 11(1.1) 27 (2.6) 12 (1.2) 58 (5.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.1) 930 (89.5) 109 10.5%
Fisheries & Wildlife 516 2 (0.4) 8 (1.2) 6 (1.2) 25 (4.8) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.2) 474 (91.9) 42 8.1%
Total Enrollment in 2016 (n=52) 2566 28 (1.1) 79 (3.1) 44 (1.7) 142 (5.5) 2 (0.1) 11 (0.4) 2260 (88.1) 306 11.9%
*(percentage of total enrollment in programmatic area)
Graduate enrollment in NR programs at NAUFRP
institutions (FAIES data, n=52) by race/ethnicity and
gender, 2016 (excluding unknown gender). FAEIS, 2018.
Race/Ethnicity Female Male Grand Total % Female
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 2 0 2 100%
Black, non-Hispanic 28 16 44 64%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 17 11 28 61%
Asian 46 33 79 58%
Two or More Races (Multiple Race/Ethnicity) 36 30 66 55%
Hispanic 75 67 142 53%
Unknown Ethnicity 142 135 277 51%
White, non-Hispanic 1101 1158 2259 49%
ALL Non-US Citizens 234 267 501 47%
Unspecified Minority 3 8 11 27%
Grand Total 1684 1725 3409 49%
Summary and Conclusions-I
The fastest growing undergraduate academic
areas in NR since 2005 have been Fisheries and
Wildlife, NR Conservation and Management, and
Environmental Science and Studies, which now
collectively make up nearly three-quarters of all
NR enrollment.
Percent female undergraduate enrollment has
been increasing steadily since 2005 and now
constitutes about 46% of total enrollment. Most
of this increase has occurred in the overall
fastest growing academic areas noted above,
with Forestry having the lowest percent females
among all NR disciplines at 26%.
Summary and Conclusions-II
Minority undergraduate enrollment has been
increasing more rapidly than Non-Hispanic
Caucasian enrollment since 2005, and now
constitutes about 12% of all NR enrollment.
Most minority groups have a higher percent
undergraduate female enrollment than does
non-Hispanic Caucasians.
While these gains are notable, the percent
undergraduate minority enrollment in NR
remains among the lowest of all areas of study
in higher education.
Summary and Conclusions-III
NR graduate enrollments have been
decreasing since about 2010.
NR Conservation and Management is the
largest and fastest growing NR discipline at
the graduate level.
Women now make up nearly half the graduate
enrollment in NR.
While the percent females in forestry (40%) is
lower than in all other NR disciplines, it is
significantly higher than at the undergraduate
level.
Summary and Conclusions-IV
While percent graduate minority enrollment
has nearly doubled since 2005, it remains less
than the percent undergraduate minority
enrollment.
Minority groups have a higher percent
graduate female enrollment than do non-
Hispanic Caucasians.
Key Questions Regarding Gender and Minority
Diversity Issues in Natural Resources
(1) Is there a demand for women and underrepresented
minorities in the NR professions?
(2) Why are females and minorities less attracted to NR
disciplines than to most other disciplines?
(3) Why are females especially less attracted to Forestry
than to other NR disciplines?
(4) Why are there differences among ethnic/racial
groups in their attraction to Forestry and related NR
disciplines?
(5) Why do some universities attract a higher
percentage of females and minorities to Forestry and
related areas of NR than do others?
Strategies for Increasing Minority Diversity
in Natural Resources-I
Acknowledge the historical (and in some cases,
continuing) discrimination against minorities with
respect to access to land and resources (Schelhas
2002, Finney 2014), and strategize on how to
minimize this discrimination.
Increase outreach efforts in young age groups
Convince them that NR majors are culturally
relevant to them by making the link between their
local communities and the health and well-being
of ecosystems.
Expose them to key role models in the form of
minority faculty and practicing NR professionals
(who are few).
Strategies for Increasing Minority Diversity
in Natural Resources-II
Partner with two- and four-year minority-
serving institutions to deal with the hesitancy
of minority students to matriculate at larger
and more distant academic institutions.
Use distance and hybrid education models to
deliver curricula to minorities in their local
communities.
Use different strategies for recruiting various
minority groups given their differential
preferences for NR majors.
Strategies for Increasing Minority Diversity
in Natural Resources-III
Focus on minority groups that are well represented in
the local and regional population.
Develop pilot programs to target minorities from which
the wider NR university community can learn.
Create a better support system for minorities and their
families.
Hire faculty, staff, and students dedicated to working
on diversity, and rewarding them for having been
successful in doing so.
Have minorities serve as role models and mentor
other minorities.
Provide for social networks for minorities.
Strategies for Increasing Minority Diversity
in Natural Resources-IV
Revise curricula to
incorporate different ways of knowing, doing, and
being
incorporate different cultural values
Increase flexibility in environments for learning (e.g.,
urban areas)
Be sensitive to workplace discrimination.
Conduct basic research to increase knowledge and
understanding of minorities in relation to natural
resources and the environment.
Implement existing strategies that reside in the literature
for attracting minorities into NR fields and measure their
success.
Challenges: Land Access Summary (Burmann
2017, Schelhas 2002)--I
Hispanics
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848)
U.S. purchase of most of southwestern U.S. from
Mexico
Honored the property rights of former Mexican citizens
Only 24% actually claimed—strict and complicated legalities
Asian Americans
Alien Land Laws (1913-1920)
11 states prohibited non-citizens from owning land
Direct response to Japanese immigrants pooling their
money to purchase land
Japanese internment camps following WWII
Chinese—transcontinental railroads
Challenges: Land Access Summary (Burmann
2017, Schelhas 2002)--II
African Americans
Slavery
Emancipation Proclamation and Freemen’s Bureau
(1865)
Congress assigns confiscated land in south to former
slaves
Andrew Johnson pressured to rescind all land titles
Proposal to allow same rights under Homestead Act
vetoed
Native Americans
Movement to reservations (poor quality land) and
later to urban areas (assimilation)
Treaty rights and ceded lands--hunt, fish, and
gather
Challenges: Land Access Summary (Burmann
2017, Schelhas 2002)--III
Has created a mistrust of land management
agencies
Much of the land appropriation was happening
at a the same time as the conservation
movement.
Images of a pristine wilderness landscape as
shaped by preservationists like John Muir,
attracted the privileged as an opportunity to
escape from the city pollution.
Challenges: Land Access Summary (Burmann
2017, Schelhas 2002)--IV
An overwhelming majority of people in the field
say that their reason for pursing a path in NR is
because of a love for nature.
This creates a challenge to attracting minority
groups that have lost their connectedness to the
land (Schelhas 2002, Sharik and Frisk 2011,
Finney 2014, Taylor 2016)
Overall Conclusions
Under-representation of minorities in natural
resources (NR) is a critical issue in the U.S., and
may be the leading cause of slow growth in this
field.
The issue is especially critical in the more
traditional fields of NR.
Strategies need to be developed for increasing
the numbers of minorities in the NR student
population and, in turn, in the workforce.
This requires a better understanding of various
minority groups in relation to natural resources
and the environment.
Other Key References-I
Dunbar-Ortiz, R. 2015. An indigenous people’s
history of the United States. Beacon Press:
Boston.
Finney, C. 2014. Black faces, white spaces:
Reimagining the relationship of African
Americans to the Great Outdoors. University of
North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill.
Marchand, M.E. et al. 2014. The river of life:
Sustainability practices of Native Americans and
indigenous peoples (ecosystem science and
applications). Michigan State University Press:
East Lansing.
Other Key References--II
Rouleau, M., T.L. Sharik, S. Whitens, and A.
Wellstead. 2017. Enrollment decision-making in
U.S. forestry and related natural resource
degree programs. Natural Sciences Education
46:170007. Doi:10.419S/nse2017.05.0007
Schelhas, J. 2002. Race, ethnicity, and natural
resources in the United States: A review. Natural
Resources Journal 42:723-763.
Contact Information
Terry L. Sharik
Robbins Professor of Sustainable Resources and Dean
School of Forest Resources and Environmental
Science
Michigan Technological University
Email: tlsharik@mtu.edu
http://www.mtu.edu/forest/about/faculty-staff/
Contact Information
Tara L. Bal
Research Assistant Professor and Director, Master of
Forestry Program
School of Forest Resources and Environmental
Science
Michigan Technological University
Email: tlbal@mtu.edu
http://www.mtu.edu/forest/about/faculty-staff/